Language desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 22

"Voluntary redundancy" in US English

Is there a better term for this in the US? Voluntary layoff? The implication in the UK is that it's permanent. Ericoides (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it indicates that an employee has agreed to be made redundant voluntarily; as opposed to compulsory redundancy where they are given no choice in the matter. See [1] Bazza (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, but I was wondering what the phrase would be in the US. Ericoides (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, we use "resign" (if the separation is permanent); or "taking furlough days" (if temporary); or perhaps "taking a leave of absence" (depending on the specific circumstances; for example, taking a personal leave of absence, taking a medical leave of absence, etc.). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joseph. You've answered my question. Ericoides (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article at voluntary redundancy and, if I'm reading it correctly, the concept is distinct from simply resigning, taking a LOA or your other suggestions. The closest analogue I can think of is severance package, but it appears that both terms are in use on both sides of the pond. In very rough terms, the severance package is what's given to employees so that they voluntarily accept the dismissal, but there seems to be a clear difference of agency. In most instances involving a severance package, the separation is not voluntary - you can accept he package or not, but you're still not coming in to work on Monday. Voluntary redundancy allows the employee some slice of control over the situation (or, at least the appearance of one). Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a company decides it needs to reduce staff and is offering a severance package, they will either ask who wants to take the package and go - voluntary redundancy - or else the company will choose who is to leave - compulsory redundancy. Often they will offer voluntary redundancy first, and only resort to compulsory redundancy if there aren't enough volunteers. The package for compulsory redundancy is often less generous than for voluntary redundancy, as an incentive to volunteer. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Early retirement"? --Khajidha (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be it. I've never heard "voluntary redundancy" used in American business. The closest to it "right-sizing" which is a more arrogant way of saying "downsizing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is. We're talking about someone who's 30 years old. Not really retiring age. But she's happy to accept a deal that her company has made that means she loses her job voluntarily (and maybe, who knows, gets a little sweetener), but is going to get another job somewhere else soon. Ericoides (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "redundancy" is chiefly British the vernacular in the US regarding the concept of voluntary redundancy is a bit convoluted, but not difficult to discern after I spent several hours this evening hunting down a number of online resources (for example this one and this one). A "reduction-in-force" (RIF) is more likely to be considered permanent without an expectation of rehiring than a layoff but it really depends on the employer for the terms are nearly synonymous. Regarding permanent layoffs, according to the article on layoff, RIF is often pronounced as "riff" and used as a verb. Similarly, the human resources department may have a "Voluntary Separation Program" that spells out the organization's "voluntary reduction-in-force" (VRIF) separation policy. For the federal government the fedweek website describes "Voluntary RIF":

"Voluntary Reduction in Force (VRIF) allows Department of Defense employees who are unaffected by reduction in force to volunteer for separation so that employees who would otherwise be separated by RIF may be retained. Some employees who may desire to leave the federal service, but who are not impacted by RIF, can take advantage of VRIF to become eligible for entitlements such as severance pay or continued health benefits coverage."

Confirming that "Voluntary Reduction in Force" is a precise and correct term in the US I found that the job placement website Careerminds states "a voluntary layoff is when a company reduces headcount by allowing certain individuals to volunteer to be laid off. If the reduction is permanent, it is called a voluntary reduction in force or a voluntary separation program." The careerminds website also states that some people call VRIFs "employee buyouts" (EBO) and other names (they don't say, but surely inclusive of "early retirement" too when it is appropriate). Collaborating the term EBO is presently used this way investopedia gives two EBO definitions. So there you go. Instead of simply "voluntary redundancy" there is actually some diversity on this. -Modocc (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if one were simply translating the phrase "So I took voluntary redundancy" from UK to US English, one would get "So I took a voluntary layoff"? Ericoides (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Instead of redundancy Americans, in general, will say layoff. Disclaimer, I'm not a RS although I have had the somewhat limited experience of reading and listening to news cycles here in the US throughout my lifetime (I was born in 1960). -Modocc (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely an American would simply say "I left my job. They gave me a nice severance package, though." --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Ericoides (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Americans might also say, 'I took a buyout', 'She was given a buyout', when there is money offered for resigning.[2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball metaphor?

What does the expression

they Monday morning quarterback your decisions

mean, (possibly referring to a discussion round the office water cooler)? 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:4999:6124:4E13:10DD (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sport reference is to American (or Canadian) football, not baseball. It means they take their time to discuss and decide what you should have done at some time in the past (like someone talking about yesterday's football game), although you had to make your decisions then with little time to think. See here, for example. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also called "second guessing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hindsight Is 20/20. —Stephen (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Monday morning quarterback" is the verb here; the quarterback is the leader of a team when it's on offense, and thus in some ways the leader of the whole team. Since the professional forms of these sports are mostly played on Sunday afternoons and evenings, fans are likely to discuss them at the office on Monday mornings, and a "Monday morning quarterback" is someone who thinks he knows all the answers and knows how the team should have played, comparable to the concept of a back-seat driver if you're familiar with that, plus the hindsight issue that Stephen mentions. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, see the "conventional usage" of Armchair general (just a military context rather than sporting), or the discussion of "armchair quarterback" in the final section of the back-seat driver article. The meaning is the same (an observer who thinks he knows better than the participants), compounded with a time delay so "they" have hindsight as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Newspapers.com (a pay site, and not comprehensive), the term first shows up in the early 1930s, so it's at least that old. Your description, "an observer who thinks he knows better than the participants", is how it was used. And lest anyone wonder, it was not a compliment! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been used in a 1925 New Yorker: [3] CodeTalker (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]